"for the purpose of collecting property from the person of Gregory G. Geiss, to wit: two blood samples . . .." It further alleged that "[s]aid property was used to commit the offense [of DUI] . . . a violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida State Statutes, Driving Under the Influence 2nd offense."In response to Mr. Geiss' motion to suppress, the trial court threw out the blood test results on the grounds the warrant violated Mr. Geiss' right to privacy under the Florida Constitution, violated the state's implied consent law and violated the state's warrant statute.
However, Florida's implied consent statute does not expressly prohibit obtaining blood by search warrant, or otherwise indicate any intent to invalidate judicial authority to issue a warrant as authorized in section 933.02, Florida Statutes. If the legislature had intended the implied consent statute to modify the warrant statute, it easily could have said so.The appellate court did, however, find that the language of the state's warrant statute prohibited the state from obtaining a search warrant to draw blood in a misdemeanor case since a warrant can only be used to obtain "property...used as a means to commit a crime." Had Mr. Geiss been charged with a felony at the time the warrant was issued, though, the statute would have permitted a warrant to draw the blood.
In its suit, Monitech Inc. says DMV Commissioner Mike Robertson broke state bidding rules by withholding the renewal of its state contract.
Since 1989 the company has been the state's sole provider of ignition interlocks, which test the breath of convicted drunken drivers for alcohol before they can start their vehicles. The devices are often mandated for people convicted of a DWI to keep their driving privileges.
Mobley has previously alleged he faced retaliation from DMV officials after he refused in 2004 to sell his business to Law Enforcement Associates, a firm whose investors included then-Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand. The Fayetteville Democrat was co-chairman of the Governor's Highway Safety Program, which oversaw DWI prevention programs.
A close political ally of Rand's, then-DMV commissioner George Tatum, also owned LEA stock with his wife. Tatum was the state official with the ultimate authority to renew Monitech's contract with the state.
More than a dozen elected officials and their family members have owned LEA stock, including former Gov. Mike Easley, current Gov. Bev Perdue and her husband. Records also show that state agencies purchased at least $192,683 in surveillance equipment from the small company, much of it bought without seeking competitive bids.
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
Me: "Heading home. Busted the panel."
Wife: "Where r u? Panel on your car?
To combat the lack of rainfall in Houston, Mayor Annise Parker has decided that it's the right time to ration water use. As of last week half the city can water their yards on Sunday and Thursday and the other half can water on Wednesday and Saturday.
"We're in the business to improve people's lives, so the use of pentobarbital to end people's lives contradicts everything that we're in business to do," Matt Flesch, a US spokesman for Lundbeck, told the BBCWhile proponents of state-sanctioned murder claim that pentobarbital works just as well as sodium thiopental which was discontinued by its manufacturer, there have been no studies to determine whether or not pentobarbital induces unconsciousness. Theoretically, the first drug causes the inmate to lose consciousness while the second drug paralyzes him. The third drug then stops the inmate's heart.
Forty-seven cocaine addicts (who were all seeking treatment) were asked to guess the number of grams of cocaine worth $1,000. They were each then given a series of choices: cocaine now versus more cocaine later; money now versus more money later; cocaine now versus money later; or money now versus cocaine later. The initial amount offered for the immediate choice has half of the full value, and the delayed amount was always the full value. Preference was almost exclusively given to the money now option, according to the study’s lead researcher, Warren K. Bickel, a psychology professor at Virginia Tech, and director of the Advanced Recovery Research Center there.It turns out that addicts prefer cash in hand over a stash of drugs - even if that cash is less than half the value of the cocaine offered in the future.
Paul, you had an Aug 9th article titled 'Defendants, Cages and Due Process' where you spoke about the process of placing defendants behind bars or reverse cages where they testify from another room. Since it seems you're adamantly against this practice, how would you propose to deal with future alleged victims of sexual assault deal with the trials? Seems like this practice is rather kind to those assaulted (if the alleged is truly guilty). Where did you find the info for the last paragraph?Well, Ms. Carliss, my solution is quite simple - the complaining witness takes a seat in the witness stand and answers questions on direct from the prosecutor and on cross from the defense attorney. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him and I believe that the right to confront is severely diluted when a witness is allowed to testify from another room.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. -- Sixth AmendmentMy idea may sound harsh but my job is to defend the Constitution. The Bill of Rights doesn't make exceptions (and neither should we) for different crimes. When a person goes on trial, the state is looking to take away that person's life, liberty or property. If we're going to allow the state to do that then we damn well better guarantee that the defendant's rights are protected and that he be afforded all of his rights under due process of law.
The brisket was firm and moist and had a very clean smoky flavor. I knew right away it had been smoked over oak. The sausage was cut on the diagonal and while it was good and smoky, the texture left a little something to be desired.Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
Addiction is more than a behavioral disorder. Features of addiction include aspects of a person’s behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and interactions with others, including a person’s ability to relate to members of their family, to members of their community, to their own psychological state, and to things that transcend their daily experience.And no, since I'm not a neurologist, I don't know what all of that means. What the ASAM seems to be saying is that addictive behavior is the result of chemical reactions in the brain. If this is indeed the case, should we re-evaluate the manner in which we handle drug and alcohol crimes? Punishing an addict does nothing to "cure" the problem. If a person has a brain disorder before entering prison or court-ordered supervision, that person will still have a brain disorder when they leave prison or are discharged from probation. We wouldn't be punishing folks for their bad acts, we'd be punishing them for something beyond their control.
"The behavioral problem is a result of brain dysfunction," agrees Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Even if you're not biologically vulnerable to begin with, perhaps you try alcohol or drugs to cope with a stressful or painful environment, Volkow says. Whatever the reason, the brain's reward system can change as a chemical named dopamine conditions it to rituals and routines that are linked to getting something you've found pleasurable, whether it's a pack of cigarettes or a few drinks or even overeating. When someone's truly addicted, that warped system keeps them going back even after the brain gets so used to the high that it's no longer pleasurable.As I've said on numerous occasions, our criminal (in)justice system is not designed to heal the sick. It's designed to punish and rehabilitate. As long as we treat medical conditions as legal problems, we are never going to give folks the help they really need. The system isn't working. We're forcing too many people into the criminal (in)justice system who don't need to be there. Branding an addict as a criminal for life does nothing to help him or her get over their addiction.
"The younger officers wanted a little more tactical, user-friendly uniform for running and tackling people. You don't go to a fight in a suit. If you're going to have to engage someone, chase someone, why not wear clothing more appropriate for the situation?" -- Gary Blankinship, President, Houston Police Officers' UnionThat's just what we need in Houston, a bunch of armed men dressed like paramilitary members running and tackling people on the street. Ladies and gentlemen, the illusion is over. The police aren't out there to protect the citizenry, they're out there to assault the citizenry.
In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court's ruling forbidding the playing of exhibits during trial, and more broadly its policy on video evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, deprived him of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution, and deprived him of his right to present a defense and confront the witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellant concedes the trial court has the discretion to set reasonable restrictions on how video evidence is published to the jury, but he contends a blanket policy prohibiting the use of such evidence during direct and cross-examination without regard to the individual facts and circumstances of a case is an abuse of discretion. Appellant contends the ruling excluding videotape evidence harmed him by eliminating his counsel's ability to present evidence in a manner that allows the jury to assimilate it as the trial progresses. He contends it is unreasonable to expect jurors to remember details developed during examination and cross-examination about recordings they have not seen or heard, and diminishes his ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses by removing the jurors' ability to actually see the impeachment evidence. In the event the jury does choose to examine the videotape during its deliberations, appellant contends the failure to present it contemporaneously with the testimony discussing it makes it more difficult for the jury to match up the video with the questions asked because the lawyers are unable to show the jury what is being referenced. Appellant contends his constitutional rights are violated by a ruling that deprives his counsel of the ability to show properly admitted evidence to the jury, explain its significance, use it to support opinions that appellant was not intoxicated, and to confront and impeach the State's witnesses to expose inconsistencies in the witnesses's testimony.But no longer.
We agree with the parties that the trial court's ruling prohibiting the publication of the videotape evidence to the jury in a timely manner, a decision preordained by the trial court's policy without reference to the facts and circumstances of this case, was arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretionThat such a policy was allowed to be carried out is a travesty. So much so that the state submitted a letter brief acknowledging that the policy violated Mr. Packer's right to an open trial.
Texas Penal Code § 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section: (1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection. (2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation. (b) A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or (3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
Texas Penal Code § 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process. (b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F). (c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it. (d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes: (1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or (2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.
Texas Penal Code § 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.And this is where things get interesting. The medical personnel who assisted in the execution (and turned a blind eye to the oath they took upon finishing medical school) are just as responsible as Mr. Jones for the death of Mr. Robles. I just wonder if they will inform future patients of the role they played in state-sanctioned murder.
It is difficult to pin down precisely when the practice began, but it seems to have originated from a time "when captives were put in cages in ancient Rome and Mesopotamia," says M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor at DePaul University's College of Law who has worked for the United Nations on human-rights issues.
By the Middle Ages, he says, defendant's cages were a regular feature of many European courts. "The original rationale for doing it was the fear that criminal defendants would attack or intimidate witnesses or judges," Bassiouni says.
Turner says cages are more likely to impact the presumption of innocence in a jury trial than one before a judge or magistrate. She also notes that the construction of the cages, themselves, can be a factor.
"Mubarak was in something like a mesh cage, but if you look at the pictures of Saddam Hussein, he's in something open and less obtrusive," Turner says, referring to the former Iraqi dictator's 2006 trial. "In Europe, glass compartments have been used more often."
"To remove an initiative before it comes on ballot is an extraordinarily irregular thing to do," said Lloyd Schofield, who is part of a Bay Area advocacy group that says the surgery violates human rights and likens it to "male genital mutilation."I guess we all need a cause but, let's get real, to blame all of the problems one has faced in life on the fact that mom and dad decided Junior should be circumcised shortly after birth, is just a bit of a stretch. Making such a statement is taking victimology to new heights. If you don't want your son to be circumcised, Mr. Schofield, then don't have him circumcised.
